Texas Supreme Court: Documented Conduct Showing Actual Job Impairment Is Key to Avoiding Disability Discrimination Liability

On April 10, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court issued a closely watched decision in Texas Department of Public Safety v. Callaway, No. 24-0966, addressing when a disability is—and is not—protected under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. The Court held that an employer may lawfully terminate an employee whose physical or mental condition impairs the employee’s ability to reasonably perform the job, even when that condition qualifies as a disability. The decision provides employers with important guidance, particularly for safety-sensitive roles, while also underscoring the care required when evaluating performance issues tied to mental health conditions.

Background: The Incident and the Lawsuit

Robert Christopher Callaway was a longtime Texas Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) officer and Texas Ranger who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). He took medical leave in 2017 to seek treatment for alcoholism and PTSD, and transferred to the Criminal Investigations Division upon his return in 2018. Callaway took additional leave in 2019 to receive inpatient treatment for the same conditions.

On January 15, 2020, while on leave, Callaway became involved in a volatile off-duty incident at his daughter’s high school after he was notified that his daughter might be detained during a mental health crisis. Callaway arrived with his DPS badge, handcuffs, and his personal firearm (because he was off-duty). Inside a small office, witnesses reported that Callaway loudly confronted counselors, displayed his badge, and threatened to “prove who has got a bigger set of handcuffs” by putting responding officers “in jail for interfering with [his] rights as a parent.” A counselor reported feeling trapped and fearing for her safety and life.

Although criminal charges were ultimately not pursued, DPS conducted an internal investigation and concluded that Callaway’s PTSD impaired his ability to reasonably perform the duties of a DPS officer, particularly given the risks inherent in law enforcement work. As a result, DPS terminated his employment.

Callaway sued DPS under Chapter 21, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. The trial court denied DPS’s motions for summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction, and the court of appeals allowed the disability discrimination claim to proceed. DPS sought and obtained review from the Texas Supreme Court.

The Court’s Holding: Disability Protection Ends When Job Performance Fails

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision permitting the disability claim to move forward. Relying on Texas Labor Code § 21.105, the Court emphasized that Chapter 21 prohibits discrimination only with respect to physical or mental conditions that do not impair an individual’s ability to reasonably perform a job.

Relying on the statute’s plain language, the Court applied an objective standard grounded in the term “reasonable.” Specifically, the Court held that the record conclusively demonstrated Callaway’s PTSD impaired his ability to perform the essential functions of a DPS officer. In evaluating the evidence, the Court focused on the loss of emotional control, misuse of law enforcement authority, and the “grave risk” posed to others—especially fellow officers—if such conduct were to occur in the line of duty. Consistent with the Court’s textual approach, it rejected Callaway’s reliance on federal statutes and judicial opinions, concluding that they “shed no light on the meaning of the statutory text our legislature enacted.”

Because Callaway’s condition impaired his job performance, the Court concluded that Chapter 21’s disability discrimination protections did not apply and dismissed the claim against DPS.

A Tight Line: Employer Judgment vs. Disability Discrimination

The decision walks a careful (and potentially controversial) line. On the one hand, it affirms that employers are not required to retain employees who cannot safely or effectively perform their jobs, particularly in safety-sensitive positions. On the other hand, it places significant weight on an employer’s assessment of when a disability has crossed from a protected condition into a job-disqualifying impairment. As a result, employers should take an individualized approach to ensure all factors have been considered before taking adverse employment action. Importantly, Callaway does not authorize employers to terminate employees simply because they have a disability, or because a disability might hypothetically affect performance. Rather, the Court’s analysis turned on specific, documented conduct demonstrating that the disability actually impaired the employee’s ability to perform the job at issue.

How Callaway Fits with Existing Disability Law

While Callaway arises under Texas law, its reasoning parallels key principles in federal disability jurisprudence:

• Under the ADA, employers may require employees to perform the essential functions of their jobs, with or without reasonable accommodation.
• Courts have long recognized that individuals who pose a direct threat or cannot safely perform safety-sensitive roles may fall outside statutory protections. See, e.g., Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002).
• At the same time, federal law cautions against decisions based on stereotypes, assumptions, or generalized fears about mental health conditions—an undercurrent employers should not overlook in applying Callaway.

What Callaway adds is a clear statement from Texas’s highest court that, under Chapter 21, impairment of reasonable job performance is a threshold issue—not merely part of a burden shifting analysis.

Key Takeaways for Employers

1. Focus on Performance, Not Diagnosis

Employers should ground decisions in observable conduct and job-related performance, not the mere existence of a medical condition.

2. Document the Nexus Between Condition and Job Duties

The Court relied heavily on evidence showing how Callaway’s condition manifested in ways incompatible with his role. Documentation matters.

3. Take a Collaborative Approach

Employers should confer with a variety of resources and personnel when developing a plan of action as to whether reasonable accommodations can be provided.

4. Exercise Extra Care in Safety-Sensitive Positions

Courts are more likely to credit employer judgments where public safety, use of force, or high-stress decision-making is central to the job.

5. Do Not Skip the Accommodation Analysis

Although DPS ultimately prevailed, employers should still engage in the interactive process where appropriate and consider whether accommodations or alternative roles are viable before concluding an impairment is disqualifying.

6. Train Decision Makers on Objective Standards

Managers should understand that Callaway does not give carte blanche to terminate employees with disabilities—it reinforces the need for objective, job-specific analysis.

Bottom Line

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Callaway provides employers with meaningful clarity under Chapter 21, but it also underscores the importance of disciplined decision-making when disability and job performance intersect. Employers who rely on evidence, avoid assumptions, and carefully document their reasoning will be best positioned to navigate this evolving area of the law.

---

*Nikki Nobile is a law clerk in the Labor and Employment Department. Many thanks for her contribution to this legal update.